Mr. Speaker, right now, this is something to which we can all agree. Animal cruelty laws in Canada need to be vastly improved. We have laws that were adopted in the 1890s, slightly amended in the 1950s and they have unfortunately not been radically revamped in the world we live in today where most of us recognize that animals should not be treated as pure property. Animals are sentient beings. Animals can suffer. Most animals have the ability to know whether they are feeling pain. Today, our animal cruelty laws are, unfortunately, many years behind the times.

I want to salute the many groups that advocate for animal welfare, which helped in moving this legislation forward. I also want to congratulate those many other groups that work with animals, ranging from agriculture to people who deal with animals in other ways, including fishers and anglers. They have worked to ensure we have legislation that is satisfactory to virtually everyone. That is possible to do, with further animal cruelty legislation.

It is not true to believe that we can never find more compelling reasons to improve animal welfare because nobody will agree. People can agree, if we all come together. I strongly back the request of my colleague from Beaches—East York at our committee to look for an all-party parliamentary committee, probably not in this mandate but in a future mandate, to ensure we can all work with the many interest groups out there to advance animal cruelty legislation in Canada.

This is a specific bill that deals with several small issues. We made changes at the justice committee to broaden the scope of the bill slightly. As initially drafted, Bill C-84 defined bestiality. It is probably something that most of us never thought we would be talking about in this place, but I will do that.

A Supreme Court judgment in R. v. D.L.W. required legislative action. In R. v. D.L.W., the Supreme Court ruled that penetration was a necessary part of the definition of bestiality in the Criminal Code. It does not mean that there were not other offences in the Criminal Code that could deal with elements of bestiality short of penetration. However, the Court placed the onus on us in the House of Commons and on the people in the other place to revise the definition of bestiality in the Criminal Code, and we are proceeding to do that.

A number of people have said that the Supreme Court erred in its judgment. I do not agree that the Supreme Court erred. We disagree with the conclusions of the Supreme Court judgment, but that does not mean it erred in law. We take our law from the British system and in the British system and throughout the Commonwealth, there have been numerous cases where there were rulings that penetration was a necessary element of bestiality. That does not mean that now that the Court has clarified this, we in Parliament cannot change the definition to clarify that bestiality does not require penetration. We are doing that in Bill C-84. When the bill came before the committee, not only did each and every member of the committee agree with the proposed definition in the bill, but so did every group that came before the committee.

We also have expanded the scope of the offence of encouraging, aiding or assisting at the fighting or baiting of animals so that the offence:

(i) includes promoting, arranging, receiving money for or taking part in the fighting or baiting of animals or birds, and

(ii) ) also applies with respect to the training, transporting or breeding of animals or birds for fighting or baiting...

We are all aware that causing animals to fight for our own pleasure as human beings, the ability to push animals to hurt one another so some people can sit there and laugh or bet, is entirely cruel, inhumane and should not only abandoned, but people who violate that type of a provision should be punished, and punished severely. Therefore, I am pleased we are expanding the scope of that offence.

The bill would also expand the scope of the offence of “building, making, maintaining or keeping a cockpit so that the offence applies with respect to any arena for animal fighting.” We should be extending this not only to people who cause cocks to fight. Anyone who causes any type of animal to fight in an arena should be subject to the penalties of the Criminal Code. I am pleased that the bill would expand those provisions.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights also decided that certain provisions of the act should be amended.

With respect to section 160 of the Criminal Code, which prevents people from possessing or residing with an animal for a period of time, up to a lifetime ban, we wanted to ensure that people convicted under these new sections could be prohibited from owning an animal for up to the rest of their lifetime. Those who have been cruel to an animal once, particularly if they have been cruel in a very flagrant way or cruel a repeated number of times, should not be allowed to own animals.

The committee assigned in the bill the same prohibition and punishment of not being able to own an animal that the existing provisions on animal cruelty in the Criminal Code did. We also added a new subsection, which notes that people who have been convicted under these sections can also be required to pay the person or organization that has to take care of an animal to rehabilitate it. This would pay for the care and damage that they caused.

We also amended subsection 490.011(1) of the code, which defines the designated offences for which a convicted individual would be required to register in the sex offender registry, so that people who commit the offence of bestiality simpliciter will be required to register as a sex offender.

There was a significant amount of debate regarding this issue. Previously, individuals had commented that there was not enough proof linking the offence of bestiality simpliciter to other sex offences. However, our committee decided, based on the scientific evidence we had seen, there was sufficient evidence to require a person to register as a sex offender if he or she committed bestiality simpliciter and was convicted. I am very pleased my colleague's amendment on that score was accepted.

Finally, we repealed subsection 447(3) of the Criminal Code, which provided that “A peace officer who finds cocks in a cockpit or on premises where a cockpit is located shall seize them and take them before a justice who shall order them to be destroyed.” This required each and every cock that was seized to be destroyed no matter its health.

We determined that there was no reason to believe that each and every cock that was found in a fighting area necessarily needed to be destroyed. We were also convinced that provincial legislation on this matter was sufficient enough to deal with any orders that had to be made regarding the destruction of an animal that was so debilitated by fighting and needed to be destroyed.

To come back to my first point, the bill was indeed an example of our being able to find support from all sides. That should be congratulated. It means members were able to rise above partisanship to decide this was good for Canada, good for the animals in Canada, good for the children in Canada and good for all of us. At committee, we were able to work together with respect to unanimously approving amendments.

I am hoping that based on this agreement, we will be able to put partisanship aside and ensure the bill is adopted as swiftly as possible so it can move to the other place and become Canadian law prior to the next election.

A number of people in the House have advanced the cause of promoting the welfare of animals and they all deserve to be applauded, no matter from which side of the House they come. They are doing something truly noble in trying to help protect the very vulnerable animals, which really deserve much more protection than our criminal law and other laws afford them today.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his work at committee on the bill and for the legal aspect that he brings to the discussion.

He mentioned the effect of this issue on children. The Guelph Humane Society has been working with women in crisis in Guelph. Women in abusive relationships who also have pets need a place to protect their pets while they are taken out of threatening situations. The pets themselves are often abused as well.

Could the member please make the connection between the pets, the children and vulnerable women and how important it is that we move the legislation through the House without any more parliamentary interference?

Mr. Speaker, the bill assures us that while there may be other offences in the Criminal Code that people who commit acts of bestiality that do not involve penetration by children, in front of children, around children or involving children could be punished with, now they would indeed be able to also be charged under the bestiality provisions, and that is a step forward. No child should ever be forced to engage in the acts that we have heard about at committee. No child should ever be a viewer of those acts. The bill that we put forward allows us to make sure that they can be charged under the bestiality provisions of the Criminal Code.

Mr. Speaker, it was a pleasure to work with the member on the justice committee. I have a question about one aspect of the bill, which talks about baiting. On a point of clarification, would baiting be just in regard to the act of fighting? I know, for example, that when hunters are conducting a bear hunt, baiting is a common practice. Is that something that the bill would prevent, or is it something that is in the bill just in the aspect of actual fighting animals?

Mr. Speaker, it was a great pleasure to serve with the hon. member for Provencher on the justice committee, and he has been sadly missed ever since he moved to another committee.

The definition of baiting was discussed at committee on a number of occasions to make sure that it would not involve, for example, the baiting of fish or anything that would potentially infringe on the rights of people today who use bait to catch a fish.

What we understood, and what was clarified by the justice department, was that baiting is in the context of bear-baiting. That is why we used the word “baiting”. It is from the Middle Ages, from bear-baiting. It would not infringe on practices used in Canada today. The justice officials clarified that.

Kevin LamoureuxLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, it would be appropriate to acknowledge not only those inside the chamber, but the many advocacy groups out there. I have received emails from people who want to make sure that I vote for this legislation. It has brought a lot of Canadians together for a wonderful cause. I applaud their efforts in terms of taking some of the credit for what we are debating today and ultimately will be passing.

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the words of my colleague from Winnipeg North. I agree completely. Canadians across the country came together to push Parliament to improve our laws on animal cruelty. Those Canadians, like other Canadians who are passionate about other issues, deserve to be congratulated, and we need to work with them to further advance laws to protect animals. I am hopeful we will do so in the next Parliament.

It being 5:52 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?